Rome ruin'd by VVhite Hall, or, The papall crown demolisht

CHAP. V. Treateth of the Government of the Church.

SECT. 1.

HAving thus discussed of the three first Ingredients, I shall now treat of the fourth, viz. Of the Govern∣ment which ought to be observed, for the regula∣ting of Churches so gathered.

Obj. When the Church is gathered as you desire, by whom, and by what meanes would you have it governed, so that it may agree with the will, and appointment of Jesus Christ?

Ans. To the first of your demands I answer, (and yet not I, but the Scripture) that it ought to governe it selfe (viz. by the reall Body thereof) and not to be governed by any particular Members set apart from the whole; or by any other Church to doe it for them, without the consent, or approbation of the whole Church.

SECT. 2.

Obj. WHat is that you tearme the Church?

Ans. A company▪ of Beleevers met together in one place, for the administration of the Ordinances of God, to publick edification.

Obj. Who doe you terme Beleevers?

Ans. Such as are willing, and doe comply with the precepts of Christ, who hath said, By this yee shall know yee are my Disciples, if yee keep my commandements; as also Joh. 14. 15. 21. 23. 24. and 15. 10. 14. as also Luke 14. 26. 27. it is not therefore every one that saith Lord, Lord, but he that doth the will of Christ that is his Disciple, and therefore they are much mistaken that thinke the assumption of the name of a Christian, doth make them one, as the generality of people doe in these dayes.

Obj. Suppose there be one thousand Beleevers in one place, or City, must they all meet together at one place, or else is it not a Church?

Ans. I have no such drift in this definition of the Church (as you would either opprobriously, or for want of judgement cast upon me) as that the Catholique Church cannot be a true Church, because they cannot all meet together at one place; for,

I acknowledge a Church may as well consist of part of the Be∣leevers of a city, or kingdom, as of all the Beleevers thereof; Paul writing to the Galatians, writeth not to the Church of Galatia, (as if they had all been Members of one individuall Body) but to the Churches in Galatia, (in the Plurall) so that as wel part of the Beleevers of a City (met together) may be termed a Church, as well as if they were all met together; therefore in such a case, as when all the Beleevers of a City, &c. cannot conveni∣ently meet together in one place, to receive edification, they may without all doubt meet at two, three, or more places, each di∣stinct from other; so that as you Presbiterians erre in the gene∣rall, so also in the particular diffinition of our Church.

SECT. 3.

Obj. VVOuld you have each of these particular Assemblies cal∣led a Church, being contained in one City?

Ans. Each of these particulars, being governed by one and the same rule, may as wel be termed a particular Church of that Ci∣ty, &c. as all the Beleevers of that City, may be termed a particu∣lar of the universall Church; instance your Parish Churches.

Obj. Whether ought the particular Churches of a City, to have its distinct officers or no?

Ans. Yes doubtlesse, and yet there may be so few Beleevers in some place, as that it wil afford none; as when there shall be found but one family in a City, &c.

Obj. If so, would you have that family termed a Church?

Ans. Our Saviour saith, that where two or three, are gathered together in his name, he will be present with them, Mat. 18. 20. and therefore one saith, Ʋbi fides, ibi est Eclesiae, where true faith is, there is the Church, be they many or few.

Obj. Doe you inferre from hence, that Church-officers are not needfull?

Ans. I doe not deny the use of them, or that there is no occasi∣on for them, but this I say to acquaint you, that there may be

some Churches, which will not consist of so many persons, as to make Officers, and yet to leave some to be governed; as in the Church which was in the house of Aquilla,▪ and Prissilla, Rom. 16. 3. 5. or in the house of Nimphas, Col. 4. 15.

SECT. 4.

Obj. VVHether did our Saviour leave the power of Judicature, to the reall or a representative Church?

Ans. Let the Apostle Paul decide the controversie; To whom did he present his Epistles, to a representative part, or to the whole?

Obj. I say to the representative part, prove you the contrary?

Ans. It is very easily done, and for proofe hereof, I instance, first in his Epistle to the Romans, where in the first Chapter, and seventh verse, he thus expresseth himselfe by way of dedication, viz. To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, and called to be Saints, &c. Now if the representative Church (which you dreame of) in Rome, consisted of all such as were beloved of God, and called to be Saints in Rome, then must it needs follow that the rest of the reall Body of the Church o•• Rome, was not beloved of God, nor called to be Saints; as also by the close of his Epistle it appeares by them whom be greeteth, and saluteth, that he w••••t the said Epistle to the reall body of the Church in Rome, unlesse you wil make Prisilla, and Mary, and the other women there mentio∣ned, to be of the representative Church, which I perswade my selfe you will not.

I instance also in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, where he is said to write to the Church of God, which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be Saints, &c. from which word is easily to be understood, that all such in Corinth, as was sanctified in Christ Jesus, and called to be Saints, were such unto whom the said Apostle, did write his Epistle; now unlesse you would have all these, to be of the representative Church, it must needs follow, that he writeth unto others.

But least you should not be satisfied with this that hath been spoken, he giveth you fuller satisfaction in the latter clause of the second verse, where he addeth to the former number of Saints spoken of at Corinth, All that in every place call upon the name of

the Lord Iesus; now if you would have all that in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus, to be of the representative Church, then we shall soone agree.

Againe, the second Epistle to the said Corinthians, is said to be written to the Church of God, which is at Corinth, with all the Saints which are in all Achaia; now shall we thinke that the Church at Corinth, with all the Saints in Achaia, were only of the representative Church; if so, what kinde of people would you have the rest of the Body to consist of.

SECT. 5.

Obj. I Must confesse, by this you have spoken, it is evident that Paul wr••t them Epistles, and the rest, to the reall Body of the Church, to whom he sent them?

Ans. If you had not, I could have instanced in divers other places, as Ephes. 1. 1. Phil. 1. 1. Col. 1. 1. wherein then doe you require any further satisfaction touching the point in question, which may not be concluded from your confession.

Obj. What can you inferre from my confession, which may availe you in your enterprise?

Ans. As much as possible I can desire, for by granting to this, (which indeed you could not avoyd) it must of necessity follow, that whatsoever is contained in those generall Epistles, (to the whole Body of the Church) must belong to the whole Church, and not to any members set apart from the whole, which you would have a representative Church.

Obj. You seeme to have read Doctor Stewarts Dupley to M. S. alies two Brethren, who were Independants.

Ans. Yes, I have read the first, and second part of it, but the title of Independant, which he putteth upon the quinque Eclesian Ministers, rather suteth with himselfe.

Obj. Why doe you take him to be an Independant?

Ans. Yea rather then the other, for he that will rather sub∣scribe to the judgement of any reforming Church now extant, then to the president left by Christ, and his Apostles, may cer∣tainly he termed an Independant, rather then they, who doe sub∣scribe to the practise of the Apostles, and doth relinquish the other.

But Doctor Stewart, and the the rest of the Presbiterian Fa∣ction, subscribe to the tradissions of their Orthodoxall Divines, (as they call them) and not to the Apostles (as I shall clearly make appeare) Ergo such men deserve the title of Independants, and not the other, whom they so terme.

SECT. 6.

Obj. VVOuld you not have them depend upon their Classicall, Provinciall, and Nationall Sinods?

Ans. We finde no such termes of pr••heminence in Scripture, as I have formerly told you, and therefore we are not to allow of any such place of dignity; and if there had been a dependancy be∣longing to the Apostles, (after the Assention of Christ) cer∣tainely it had belonged unto Peter, as I have formerly shewed; but that the Apostles did not absolutely depend upon the judge∣ment of Peter, is manifestly cleared, at the decision of the con∣troversie about Circumcision, Act. 15. the due observance of which Dispute, wil fully cleare the matter in question; For,

1. We finde that the Assembly collegated together, to decide that controversie, was not meerly the Apostles themselves, (who certainly either then or since, was the most able to have decided it of themselves) but we finde in the same text, that the Apostles admitted also of the Elders of the Church (then with them at Jerusalem) yea, and not only these, but also the Brethren; so that it is manifest, that Counsell consisted of the reall Body of the Church then at Jerusalem, and not of any members set apart from the whole.

2. We read that albeit Peter was the first that opened the case in that difference (as commonly he was in all other, in re∣gard of his boldnesse) yet did the Apostles, and Elders, and the rest of that Church, rather allow of the judgement of James, then of Peter, as we have it in the 22. verse of that Chapter, whereas had they been absolutely to have depended upon Peters judge∣ment, it had been a presumption in James to have spoken; or if they had been to have depended upon the judgement of James, it had been the like for Peter to have spoken; but that they were not bound to depend on either of them, or any of the rest, may appeare, in that either all, or most of them, used their Christian

liberty in the matter of Dispute, as either Peter, James, or any other of the Assembly, as cleerly appeareth in the seventh Verse.

3. It is also evident, that not only in this matter of contro∣versie, but also at other times; yea the Apostles never urged the Church to confide in their Judgement, or Doctrines, further then they found it consonant to the Scriptures, witnesse the Be∣reans, whom they commended for so doing, Act. 17. 11.

SECT. 7.

NOw it thus appearing, that there was no Priority amongst the Apostles, under their immediate calling; why should there be any amongst the Ministers of Christ, under their mediate calling,; if not amongst them equals, why amongst these?

Againe, to depend upon any, unlesse we knew him, or at least did beleeve him to be infallable, were a meere madnesse, and ab∣solute Popery; yea in such a dependance, the Papists are to be commended, above the Presbiterians; for their dependance up∣on the Pope, is on no other ground, but that they think he cannot erre; but I suppose the Presbiterians, wil not deny, but that their Classicall, Provinciall, and Nationall Sinods, may, and doth erre, and therefore to depend solely upon such, is no lesse then popery.

Obj. They hate Popery, they will depend upon the Canonnicall Scriptures of the Old, and New Testament.

Ans. If so, therein they agree with them, whom they terme Independants, and this they may doe, without appealing to their Classicall, Provinciall, and Nationall Sinods; for in matters of Di∣vinity, to appeale to such, is either that we hold them to be in∣falible, or our selves novices. Againe, thus to depend, is to run our selves into an infinitum, as from the Brethren, to the Elders, from the Elders to the Pastor, from the Pastor, to the Classis, from the Classis, to the Provinciall, and from the Provinciall, to the Nationall, which if not infallible, to whom, unlesse to the Pope.

Obj. They hate the Pope, I told you to the Canonicall Scriptures▪

Ans. And I tell you againe, that the Canonicall Scripture, must then be the Umpire, when all is done.

Notes

• The fourth Ingredient.
• By whom the Church ough•• to be gover∣ned.
• What the Church is.
• What a Be∣leever is.
• How a church may be divi∣ded int•• parts, and yet conti∣nue a church.
• Christ le••t the govern∣ment of his Church to the reall body thereof.
• That which was written to ••h•• whole Church, doth ••el••ng to the whole Church to effect.
• He is no Inde∣pendant that doth depend upon the Scriptures.
• No such termes as Classical, Pro∣vinciall, or Nationall Si∣nods found in Scriptures.
• The Breth••en had a joynt interest and concurrency in all matters concerning the Church.
• No priority amongst the Apostles.
• What it is to depend upon one another.